(sitting alone) Ms R Glendenning v Ross & Liddell Limited — 2021

Ms R Glendenning worked for Ross & Liddell Limited as insurance manager from 1 March 2013 until her resignation took effect on 2 January 2020. The dispute arose after the respondent’s broker, JLT, terminated its brokerage contract in late 2017 following a heated call between the claimant and JLT staff. The tribunal found that this incident caused Mr Cassidy to lose confidence in the claimant’s communications with key external contacts, and that from early 2018 he took a more direct role in the insurance function.

The claimant alleged a series of incidents between 2018 and 2019 amounted cumulatively to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, including the handling of complaints from JH, changes to the new business quotation process, remarks about her health, exclusion from some meetings, and the way she was dealt with after the 14 August 2019 email exchange about deceased owners. The tribunal accepted some of her evidence and found that a small number of matters might be open to criticism, including the remark about her feeling unwell and the fact that she was not always brought into renewals or apportionment code discussions. However, it held that those matters had reasonable and proper cause in the wider context of communication difficulties and the board’s decision that Mr Cassidy should take a more direct role after the JLT episode.

The tribunal rejected the allegation that the respondent’s handling of JH’s concerns, the renewal process, the POL insurance dispute, the Towergate issues, and the grievance/OH process amounted to a repudiatory breach. It found that the respondent was entitled to raise concerns about the claimant’s communications, to manage the insurance business more directly, and to process her very serious complaint about Mr Cassidy formally and carefully. The claimant repeatedly said that her aim was to resolve matters amicably and return to work, and she did not resign until 20 November 2019, after the grievance and occupational health correspondence. The tribunal therefore held that she had not established constructive unfair dismissal and dismissed the claim.